Hunger Free Oklahoma opposes shifting SNAP costs to states
For the first time, the U.S. House is considering making states cover part of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP. States could be required to pay up to a 25% match.
'In current numbers could be as high as $475 million total in cost shifted to the state at a time where, you know, our state does not have that money,' said Chris Bernard, CEO of Hunger Free Oklahoma.
Bernard believes the state would be forced to make cuts to the program.
'We don't know if that means they would just cut entire categories of people off the program. We don't know if that means they just cut how much benefits are. There's a lot of unknowns, but any of them is disaster. People are struggling with the levels we have of SNAP now,' said Bernard.
He says 600,000 families rely on SNAP benefits every year in order to put food on the table and these proposed changes would hurt those families.
'Way more people will be making decisions between keeping the lights on and putting food on the table. You're talking about parents skipping meals or choosing not to take crucial medications for their health to make sure their kids can eat,' said Bernard.
Pressure would also be put on charitable organizations like food banks and pantries, which are already having a hard time meeting needs.
Local nonprofit offers help after grandmother's SNAP benefits are stolen
'They are being forced to change rules of how often you can visit, they are being forced to maybe limit where they didn't limit before and if you add on top of that, it's a recipe for disaster,' said Bernard.
Bernard also adding that these cuts could cost the state more in the long run.
'They lead to worse health outcomes, they lead to the investments we've made in education being completely pointless because hungry kids can't learn,' said Bernard.
Hunger Free Oklahoma says it could also have an impact on other areas too.
'School meals because kids who are on SNAP automatically qualify for free or reduced lunch, it will also potentially impact Title I funding and federal dollars that flow to education that way, it will impact Medicaid eligibility,' said Bernard.
Hunger Free Oklahoma encourages you to take action and tell those in Congress how you feel.
News 4 reached out to Oklahoma Human Services about the proposed cuts and was sent a statement:
'Oklahoma Human Services is working with our federal partners to learn more about any potential effects on our programs. We will continue to communicate with partners and clients as we learn more.'
Oklahoma Human Services
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Washington must lead as AI reshapes the world
Artificial intelligence isn't just changing how we work but how we live. As a surgeon, I have seen how AI tools can reduce diagnostic errors, streamline paperwork and free me to spend more time with patients. It doesn't replace me — it makes me better at my job. In many ways, it lets me be more human. From agriculture to education, logistics to climate response, AI is already solving real problems. But the disruption is real, too — job losses, confusion and rising public distrust. Without direction, AI could deepen inequality, concentrate power and erode trust in democratic institutions. With the right leadership, it could do the opposite. This moment demands more than regulation. It needs vision — strategic, inclusive and grounded in shared democratic values. And that's where Washington comes in. I grew up in India, trained in Britain and now live and teach in Canada. Across continents, I have seen how new technologies can lift societies — or leave people behind. When the internet and personal computers emerged, many feared mass unemployment. There was disruption, yes, but also new industries, jobs and hope. AI holds similar potential — if we prepare wisely. The job losses AI is causing aren't speculative — they're already here. But they don't have to become casualties of progress. We can act now by funding real retraining, preparing people for future work and ensuring that AI's benefits reach beyond boardrooms to classrooms, clinics and communities. A practical step forward could be launching an 'AI impact initiative' — a public-private partnership that deploys vetted tools into real-world settings. Used wisely, AI can ease workloads, reduce burnout and free up time for what matters most — improving both productivity and quality of life. Globally, Washington could convene a 'democratic tech compact,' bringing together like-minded nations to align on trusted AI standards, open-data protocols and safeguards — offering a responsible counterweight to authoritarian AI models. AI, done right, could revive the middle class, restoring dignity to work, expanding access to services and letting people focus on what matters. It could also help us respond to crises, from pandemics to wildfires, with more speed and less chaos. But it won't happen through fragmented legislation. Washington must lead — by uniting democratic allies, industry, civil society and those working with AI every day. This coalition could build something lasting: shared principles like transparency, fairness and accountability. Shared tools — open datasets, regional innovation hubs and incentives for responsible development. A blueprint for the kind of world we want AI to help build. Imagine if companies were recognized not just for breakthroughs, but for building systems that reduce burnout, stabilize supply chains and support everyday workers. That's not science fiction. That's a policy choice. Some early steps are promising. Congress is exploring bipartisan legislation on AI research and deepfakes. But what's missing is a coordinated roadmap — one that drives innovation, protects economic stability and brings democratic partners together to shape a future where technology strengthens, rather than destabilizes, our institutions. If the U.S. doesn't lead, others will. Authoritarian regimes are already using AI — not to serve people, but to surveil and control them. When Vladimir Putin said in 2017, 'Whoever leads in AI will rule the world,' he was telling the truth. I don't write this as an American. But like many around the world, I have seen how U.S. leadership can set the tone — not through dominance, but by offering direction rooted in freedom, fairness and trust. And AI desperately needs that guidance. In medicine, we don't let even the most gifted surgical trainees operate solo on day one — not because they lack potential, but because safety depends on oversight and structure. AI demands the same — not suppression, but stewardship. We've been here before, on the edge of revolutions we didn't fully understand. This time, we can be more prepared. We can build the foundation for a future where innovation and human dignity grow together. The decisions made today won't just shape AI. They will shape the kind of world we live in, and the one we leave behind. And because Washington holds unmatched influence — economic, military and technological — its leadership matters more than ever. Not to dominate the future, but to help humanity rise with it. Dr. Debakant Jena is an orthopedic surgeon, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary and a first-generation immigrant to Canada. He has written extensively on Canadian policy, immigration and international relations.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Political vampires are draining the country — term limits are the answer
In American politics today, our collective energy is being drained at an alarming rate. The culprits? The vampires. Not the tasty ones like Count Chocula; rather, the blood sucking ones, like way too many members of our current Congress. A vampire, by my definition, is someone who takes more energy than he gives. In the workplace, where they're also a problem, I've learned to spot vampires quickly and remove them. In politics, they're just as easy to identify but far harder to root out, and their damage is far greater. Vampires in government come in various forms. Many are not believers in the vision of a better country; they're content to tinker at the edges and do whatever they must to keep their jobs. They will go whichever way the wind blows, as long as it carries them to another term in office. Others excel at shooting down big plans and bold ideas, telling us why things can't or shouldn't be done without offering meaningful solutions of their own. Some are slow-moving and low on energy and creativity. Others have boundless energy but spend it on distractions like launching and defending investigations, fighting over wedge issues that affect few Americans, and chasing political theater rather than measurable progress. Some are masters of endless debate, chewing over the same issues long past the point of usefulness, mistaking motion for progress. They gossip. They maneuver. They focus more on partisan intrigue than on real-world problem solving. And perhaps worst of all, they are not in a rush. They behave as if time is an endless circle. Here's the test: after a leader speaks, do you feel inspired and ready to act, or do you feel drained and disillusioned? If it's the latter, you've just encountered a vampire, and if we applied that standard across Washington, we might be left with only 15 or 20 true leaders in Congress. Our country does not need life-takers but life-givers — leaders who bring energy to the hardest problems, who dream, who believe and who actually create and enact big solutions to big problems. The first step is simple but not easy: Stop electing vampires. The second is even harder: Demand that the people we send to Washington give more than they take. No more small thinking dressed up as realism. The last step is the most challenging of all: We must impose term limits. When we started out as a country, we had Founding Fathers who did not agree with each other on everything. But they did agree on some very important things. It never would have occurred to Thomas Jefferson or George Washington to hang out in Washington, D.C., for 20 or 30 years. They had the good sense and, frankly, good manners, not to overstay their welcome. Vampires are thriving in American politics because politics has become a profession, whereas it was supposed to be a short-term public service. Without term limits, people with the same old ideas and energy-sucking ways can stay in D.C. indefinitely. And they do. Clearly, members of Congress are not motivated to vote themselves out of a job. How can we pass term limits without Congress itself proposing a constitutional amendment? Two-thirds of state legislatures (34 out of 50) must pass resolutions calling for a convention where a constitutional amendment could be proposed. The challenges we face — the national debt, economic inequality, education, public health, national security — are too urgent for leadership that runs on autopilot or thrives on division. We need public servants who treat time like the scarce resource it is and act with urgency on behalf of the real needs of Americans. To win the future, America doesn't need perfect leaders. It needs energetic, committed, life-giving ones. It needs people who push us to think bigger and act faster, even when it is not politically convenient. The stakes are too high to let the vampires keep running the country. Urge your state legislature to pass a resolution calling for a convention on term limits. In the meantime, the next time you vote, ask yourself a simple question: Will this person give the nation more energy than they take from it? If not, guard your neck — and don't vote for him or her. Brian Hamilton is the nationally-recognized entrepreneur who founded Sageworks (now Abrigo), the country's first fintech company. He is also the founder of the Brian Hamilton Foundation and Inmates to Entrepreneurs, where he serves as the leading voice on the power of ownership to transform lives.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
In a Closely Divided Congress, Aging Lawmakers Are a Problem for Democrats
The 2026 midterms are more than a year away, but some high-profile primary election battles in the Democratic Party are gaining national attention. Much of that attention is focused on the age of the candidates. Thanks to Texas' proposed mid-decade redistricting, a showdown is looming between two Democrats serving in the U.S. House of Representatives from that state: 36-year-old Rep. Greg Casar has made clear his intention to run against a colleague, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, despite Doggett's public pressure on Casar to run in a different district. Doggett is 78 years old and has served in the House since 1994. An even more stark generational divide has emerged in New York's 12th district, where 26-year-old political organizer Liam Elkind is making a similar challenge in a Democratic primary. The 18-term incumbent in that race, Rep. Jerry Nadler, will be 79 years old by next year's midterm election. He began his political career as a New York state assemblyman in 1977 — more than 20 years before Elkind was born. These generational matchups have become common in the Democratic Party. They have also gained significant attention, particularly since the 2018 upset of another veteran Democratic leader, Rep. Joe Crowley of New York, in a primary challenge from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was 28 at the time. These challengers often criticize the seniority of older lawmakers. They say seniority is not a benefit but a hindrance to effective representation because the longtime incumbents are out of touch with the needs of their districts and the country, and that remaining in office crowds out crucial younger perspectives. As generational challenges have become more common, they've also become sharper in their explicit appeals to age as a key candidate quality. And candidates like Elkind have made the argument that the stakes go beyond generational 'vibes.' A geriatric Congress can also have demonstrable effects on the policymaking that happens on Capitol Hill. Slim majorities make age a bigger issue Why is candidate age so prominent in the current election cycle? One big reason is that razor-thin majorities in Congress make every seat count. Slim margins create legislative and institutional uncertainty that has very real consequences for how Congress is run and how policy gets made. In his candidacy announcement video, Elkind makes this point explicitly: 'In the last five months, three House Democrats passed away, allowing Trump's billionaire bill, gutting health care and food stamps for millions of people, to go through by one vote.' Although it's likely that Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' would have passed even without these vacancies, the Democratic absences undoubtedly made Speaker Mike Johnson's job of passing the bill a little bit easier. Elkind also notes that the last eight members of Congress who passed away in office were Democrats. In essence, Elkind is arguing that Democrats must elect more young members not just as a matter of representation but as a way of preserving power in Congress. How do vacancies occur? Seat vacancies caused by the early departures of members of Congress happen regularly, and in a variety of ways. The 118th Congress, which met from Jan. 3, 2023, to Jan. 3, 2025, set a modern record with 17 vacancies, a rate unmatched going back to the 1950s. This was partly because of four member deaths, including Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. Other high-profile vacancies in the 118th Congress were due to different causes. Some members were forced to resign or even expelled from Congress because of scandal, like GOP Rep. George Santos of New York, who was convicted in 2024 for a range of crimes and subsequently sentenced to several years in prison. Others cut short their current term due to political defeats: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from California, resigned after being ousted from his leadership post in 2023. The current 119th Congress has seen additional resignations from members who took positions in the second Trump administration. Resignation is the most common reason for departure in recent Congresses. However, at least one member – and often more than one – has died in all but one Congress in the past 70 years. The number of deaths that regularly occur among members is more than sufficient to change how the majority party functions in a closely contested Congress like this one. And for Democrats, three member deaths in the first nine months of the current Congress is far ahead of previous years' paces, making incumbents' advanced age a relevant issue on the campaign trail. How are vacancies filled? Although U.S. Senate vacancies are often – though not always – filled through an appointment by the governor of that state, the Constitution mandates that House vacancies be filled by special elections scheduled by the governor. These elections usually happen within a few months of the vacancy. What this means is that there are real possibilities for the size of a party's majority to shrink, or grow, between election years, in ways that have profound impacts on policymaking. And even if a majority party shift doesn't happen, a district could still replace a moderate departing representative with an extremist, or vice versa. What does this mean for the 2026 midterms? Whether younger candidates' message will resonate with primary election voters remains an open question. Longer-serving incumbents hold major advantages like deeper campaign experience. Younger candidates traditionally lack the name recognition and donor bases that older incumbents have built up over decades. But given the public concern over the high-profile declines of candidates for president – like former President Joe Biden – and for Congress, like Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Mitch McConnell, generational politics may be more important than ever, and help reverse this trend. Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The post In a Closely Divided Congress, Aging Lawmakers Are a Problem for Democrats appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
